Termination of service and forfeiture of gratuity require substantial proof of misconduct; mere allegations are insufficient without evidence or conviction for moral turpitude.

JUDGMENT :

Shampa Dutt (Paul), J.

1. The present writ application has been preferred against orders dated 09.02.2024 and 30.12.2024 passed by the Controlling Authority and the Appellate Authority respectively.

2. The petitioner is a company incorporated under the companies Act, 1956 and performing as the sole Dielectric Film Manufacturer in India.

3. The private respondent no. 4 was appointed w.e.f. 01.08.2012 in the petitioner company as a technician.

4. It is further stated that the private respondent being in a responsible position was privy to various process, techniques, recipes which are developed with the company over the years thorough research and in house experimentation which was strictly confidential in nature and not to be shared outside the company but it was found that the private respondent violated the terms of employment and was playing the role of a middleman in contracting with another company and trying to set up another company, of Capacitor Film Manufacturing plant and after receiving proof of the same, the company issued show cause letter dated 21.07.2022 to the private respondent and suspended him from service.

5. On receiving response from the private respondent, the company conducted a domestic enquiry and on receiving the notice of enquiry in which he did not participate, the private respondent decided to tender his resignation on 15.08.2022, but the resignation was not accepted by the management/petitioner herein.

6. The enquiry proceeding was completed and on the basis of the report of the enquiry officer, the private respondent was terminated from service and admittedly the private respondent did not challenge the said enquiry report nor the order of termination passed on 11.10.2022.

7. It is the further case of the petitioner that as the private respondent was terminated from service due to misconduct and such misconduct is nothing but moral turpitude and therefore due to loss sustained by the petitioner, his gratuity was forfeited by the order dated 22.11.2022 under Section 4(6) of the payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. The charges against the private respondent was further proved, when he admittedly joined the rival company.

8. The private respondent then submitted an application for gratuity to the petitioner on 06.12.2022 and subsequently on 16.01.2023 filed an application under Form N to the learned Controlling Authority for payment of Gratuity.

9. The petitioner submitted their explanation in connection with the said claim of gratuity. After hearing the parties the Controlling Authority passed an order dated 09.02.2024 in favour of the private respondent directing the appellant company to pay gratuity amount of Rs. 1,37,308/- along with interest @ 10% P.A. on and from 11.10.2022 till the payment within 30 days from the receipt of the direction. On the following findings:-

“………..In this instant case, though the Opposite Party Co. arranged Domestic enquiry against the alleged misconduct of the applicant but neither they had registered any FIR nor had filed any criminal complaint before a competent court of law to establish the misconduct or offence of the Applicant. There is no conviction of the applicant for the alleged "serious nature of the misconduct” which according to the Opposite Party Co. is an offence involving moral turpitude. Hence, the offence of the applicant is not established. Hence, there is no justification for the f